Tourism as a Force for Political Stability

By

CRAIG WEBSTER
University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Avenue, PO Box 24005, 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus. E-
mail: webster.c@unic.ac.cy.

STANISLAV H. IVANOV
International University College, 3 Bulgaria Street, 9300 Dobrich, Bulgaria. E-mail:
stanislav.ivanov@vumk.eu. (Corresponding author)

Abstract
While there is substantial literature investigating the economic benefits of tourism for
countries, less literature delves into the political benefits of tourism. In this paper, the authors
investigate the issue of political conflict and the theoretical reasons that it is believed that
tourism should lead to peacebuilding and political stability. Then, the authors deal with
several case studies in which tourism has played a role or could play a role in political
stability or peacebuilding. The authors illustrate via examples (Cyprus, Korea, and Ireland)
that there are situations in which tourism has played a role or could play a role in supporting
political cooperation and supporting political stability. The authors conclude, illustrating
general observations regarding the relationship between tourism and political stability and the
related concept of peacebuilding. In addition, the authors make comments regarding what
concrete and practical measures countries can take in order to utilize the engine of tourism for
the purposes of bolstering political stability and encouraging the building of peace both within
and between societies.

Kew words: tourism, peace, Ireland, Korea, Cyprus

Forthcoming in: The International Handbook on “Tourism and Peace”, Centre for Peace
Research and Peace Education of the University Klagenfurt/Austria in cooperation with
UNWTO

1
Introduction
There are many different ways to view tourism and its relationship with peace and political
stability. In this piece, we will link the relationship of tourism with peace and political
stability to paradigms in international relations. We will show that the schools of international
relations play a key role in understanding the linkage between the economic activity of
tourism and the social and political outcome of peace and political stability.

The issue of the relationship between the two concepts of political stability/peace building and
tourism is not an entirely new concept to be brought up in the study of tourism, although there
is an indication that it is becoming increasingly prolific. For example, in recent years, there
are a number of edited books (see for example, Butler and Suntikul 2010, 2013; Moufakkir
and Kelly 2010; Blanchard and Higgins-Desbiolles 2013) and research papers (Askjellerud
2003; D’Amore 1988; Causevic and Lynch 2011; Clements and Georgiou 1998; Higgins-
Desbiolles 2006; Higgins-Desbiolles 2007; Kelly 2006; Salazar 2006; Sarkar and George
2010) that concentrate on the political conflicts/peace building and tourism and there is likely
to be an increasingly interesting and hopefully fruitful debate on tourism and political
stability/peace. Although traditionally most think of tourism as a merely economic activity, it
seems that the field is increasingly viewing it as an economic activity with political and social
consequences. Here, we explore tourism and some of its political and social consequences
using approaches imported from International Relations.

We begin with a discussion of the prevailing ideologies of the field of International Relations
and attempt to show how tourism can be viewed from each of these ideologies. We then
illustrate that the ideologies of International Relations have implications for tourism. We
focus closely on liberalism and its perception of tourism as a force for peace and political
stability. We then turn to examples in the world in which the liberal thinking of tourism
leading to peace has been attempted, although with various success. We conclude, illustrating
what the cases of tourism have taught us about the linkage of tourism to the creation of
political stability and the building of peace.

International Relations Schools and Tourism

Shortly before World War Two, E.H. Carr (2001) wrote a book that set the stage for the
division of schools of thought in the nascent field of International Relations. The Twenty

2
Years’ Crisis is a key book in the field of International Relations because it defines two
different ways of looking at international events – one from the perspective of the idealist and
one from the perspective of the realist. For Carr, there was a division in thinking about how
international relations could be conceived, from the perspective of state-centred thinking and
from the perspective of non-state-centred thinking with the intent to reach an ideal
international community that would be inherently peaceful and cooperative.

Following World War Two and the institutionalization of International Relations in

universities throughout the world, there has been a lot of thinking and writing about the
divisions of perceptions regarding the analysis of international events. At present, there are
either three or four recognized paradigms of International Relations and they have been
discussed and continue to be discussed to a great extent (see for example, Guzzini 1998,
Guzzini 2013; Walt 1998). The prevailing paradigms are realism, liberalism, and neo-
Marxism, as outlined by Holsti (1985), although they are referred to by different names at
times. While constructivism is also frequently cited as a substantial paradigm, for our
purposes here, we leave it aside, since its application to the issue of political
stability/peace/peace-building and tourism is a bit more convoluted and indirect than the more
established paradigms.

While International Relations scholars generally accept that there is no longer a dichotomy of
schools in the field but a division among three to four schools, the major division that persists
is the division between realists and the idealists of different sorts. Holsti (1985) divided the
prevailing strands of idealist thinking into the liberals and neo-Marxists. For him and for
many others, the division between the two was natural and needed, since they both have very
different views on the desirability of markets and capitalism, with liberals viewing capitalism
and liberal democratic political and legal institutions as beneficial things, leading to peace and
prosperity, while neo-Marxists view them as tools of exploitation used by the owners of the
means of production. Table One below illustrates the divisions and highlights what makes
these different fields differ from each other.

3
 Table 1: Schools of International Relations and Tourism
Dichotomy Realism Idealism
of schools
Trichotomy Realism / Liberalism / Neo-Marxism
of schools Classical Tradition Global Society
Units of States Markets/individuals Socio-economic
analysis classes
Assumption Humans are self- Humans are Humans are
regarding interested cooperative cooperative
human
nature
Normative Relative peace Global government Socio-economic
end equality
Future Continuation of Strong international Collapse of
trajectory of conflicts between legal system capitalism, rise of
world states global socialism
Example of Balance of power Democratic peace Dependency theory
theory from
the school
Role of Revenue for states. A pathway to mutual Economic exchange
Tourism Facilities and understandings and with social and
infrastructure to creation of greater negative
assist diplomacy interactions between consequences for
peoples of different much of humanity
countries
Note: Based upon the paradigms Holsti (1985)

Realists largely differ from others since they view humans as self-interested and value
maximizing entities. As an extension of this, there is the notion that states are and should be
thought of as self-interested value maximizing entities. Because of this perspective, realists
tend to focus upon issues linked with security, war, and diplomacy. The realist perspective
also views conflict as a natural part of the human experience and feels that humans will never
outgrow this behaviour. At best, realists expect humans to use diplomacy and statecraft in
ways to limit conflict. Balance of power is a typical approach associated with realist thinking.
In this approach, states either use or should use their war-making capacity and diplomacy in
ways that create relative peace and stability, given that war and the state are inherent parts of
the social world. Since this is a state-centred view of the world focussing upon
political/military conflicts between states, there is little room for tourism in this view of the
world, although tourism may be seen as a way for the state to develop economically or as
infrastructure to assist in diplomacy.

4
The prevailing schools of idealist thought in International Relations, in contrast with realism,
have much to say about tourism. Liberalism is a market-oriented view of the world, arguing
that liberal markets and liberal democratic political institutions are the general organizing
principles that will assist in creating a better world. Their view differs from the neo-Marxists
in that they view markets and liberal democratic institutions as institutions that favour the
class owning the means of production and these institutions (markets and liberal democratic
social and political institutions) create economic, social, and political disruptions and
distortions. Thus, while liberals may view markets, global governance structures (including
international law) and multinational corporations as things bringing about wealth, progress,
and democracy, neo-Marxists view these same institutions as vehicles of oppression,
impoverishment, racism, sexism, and social and economic exclusion.

Tourism, as an economic, social, and (ultimately) political exercise is thus perceived as

differently by liberals and neo-Marxists. Liberals, predictably, will see tourism as a positive
thing, as it works largely on market principles, creating wealth, employment and social
encounters that will lead to closer social relationships between peoples. The net social and
cultural outcome of such economic and social exchange, for liberals, is mutual understanding.
Thus, for liberals, the market transactions between people for tourism purposes lead to mutual
understandings and peace.

One of the key liberal approaches to the creation of stable and meaningful peace is the notion
of the contact hypothesis. The contact hypothesis holds that contacts between people under
certain conditions will lead to an amicable and cooperative atmosphere in which individuals
can work together (Tomljenović 2010:19). Essentially, this contact approach holds that when
people are exposed to each other and cooperate, mutual understanding and cooperation breaks
out. There are a number of works that look upon this as a realistic way of increasing peace,
political stability, and mutual understanding (see for example, Pizam, Jafari and Milman
1991; Pizam, Uriely, and Reichel 2000; Kim, Prideaux, and Prideaux 2007; Maoz 2010).

As opposed to a liberal approach, neo-Marxists (and dependency theorists, as a subset of the

neo-Marxists) concentrate on the negative outcomes of the market processes upon the
majority of the world’s population. There are many examples from the literature that explain
how neo-Marxists view the market system and its relationship to underdevelopment and
exclusion and the role of tourism in the process (see, for example, Akama 2004; Bianchi

5
2011, 2002; Britton 1981, 1982; Chaperon and Bramwell 2013; Hall 2011; Munt 1994). There
are also a number of writings taking this approach to explain specific case studies, illustrating
the value of the neo-Marxist perspective in terms of creating social and economic exclusion
(see, for example, Akama 1999; Meyer 2011; Bianchi 2004; Mbaiwa 2005).

All-in-all, the idealist approaches to International Relations informs us best of the relationship
between tourism and political stability. For realists, tourism is an afterthought, since it is an
activity outside the realm of the central purposes of the state (security and war). However, the
two major different strands of idealism (liberalism and neo-Marxism) illustrate that tourism
may play an important role in either generating peace and stability (liberalism) or
undermining them (neo-Marxism), depending upon which strand of idealism is followed.
Now, we turn to some examples of tourism and political stability to determine what the most
recent literature has to say about the issue and how the two strands of idealism influence their
success and non-success.

Case Studies

Ireland
Probably one of the most cited and respected success stories in terms of peace-building
(Power 2011) and the use of tourism as a driver of peace and cross-border cooperation is the
island of Ireland (Greer 2002; McCall and O’Dowd 2008; Tannam 2006; Teague and
Henderson 2006). Divided between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, the island was the scene of terrorism/political violence for two-
and-a half decades (1969-1993, sometimes referred to euphemistically as the ‘Troubles’) with
profound negative impact on its economic and tourism development (Boyd 2000). After the
IRA ceasefire in 1994 and the subsequent Good Friday Agreement from 10th April 1998,
hopes for peace in the island materialised capitalising on the peace dividend for the economy
as a whole and tourism in particular (Leslie 1996, 1999; Muckley 2011). As a result of Strand
2 of the Good Friday Agreement, the North/South Ministerial Council was established with
the goal ‘to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland’
(North/South Ministerial Council 2013) within 12 areas of mutual interest between the both
sides of the border. Six of the areas of mutual interest have joint implementation bodies, while
for the other six areas of co-operation, including tourism, common policies and approaches

6
are agreed in the North/South Ministerial Council but implemented separately in each
jurisdiction (the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland).

In 2002, under the framework of the Good Friday Agreement, the Tourism Ireland Ltd. was
formed – a cross-border institution responsible for the marketing of the Island of Ireland as
one tourist destination. It is jointly funded by the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland
Executive on a two to one ratio, and operates under the auspices of the North/South
Ministerial Council through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern
Ireland and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in the South (Tourism Ireland
2013). In achieving its objectives Tourism Ireland works closely with the two tourist
authorities from both sides of the border – Fáilte Ireland (Fáilte Ireland 2013a) and the
Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB 2013). Tannam (2006) emphasises that tourism
cooperation between the two political entities on the Island of Ireland has not been impeded
significantly by bureaucratic, business or political conflicts of interest, mostly because
Tourism Ireland has successfully contributed to the dramatic increase of visitor numbers on
both sides of the border – the increased economic benefits of tourism helped partially offset
the political and bureaucratic obstacles for the cross-border cooperation. In its corporate plan
Tourism Ireland has explicitly put as an objective to overcome consumers’ concerns about
safety and security while in Northern Ireland (Tourism Ireland 2011:31). The plan
acknowledges that tourists still hold negative images of the past about the North and these
perceptions should be overcome. With the enduring peace and the pro-active behaviour of the
tourism stakeholders on the island, tourists’ perceptions could be successfully reversed to a
more positive direction. However, while acknowledging that cooperation between the two
entities on the island increased after the Belfast agreement, Teague and Henderson (2006)
conclude that this has not led to a radical change in the business or institutional dynamics of
the sector either side of the border, and that the depth of cooperation is questionable as it does
not always touch the core strategic activities of Fáilte Ireland and the Northern Ireland Tourist
Board.

7
Table 2.
Key tourism indicators for the Island of Ireland for 2011-2012
Year
Indicator Entity 2011 2012
Number of visitors outside the entity (in thousands) Northern Ireland 1931 1984
Republic of Ireland 6505 6517
Tourism revenues from visitors from outside the entity (in millions of Northern Ireland 463 488
euro for Republic of Ireland, millions of pounds for Northern Ireland) Republic of Ireland 2970.7 n.a.
Total tourism revenues of the entity (in millions of euro for Republic Northern Ireland 640 683
of Ireland, millions of pounds for Northern Ireland) Republic of Ireland 5735.8 n.a.
Number of hotels Northern Ireland 135 138
Republic of Ireland 883 856
Sources: compiled by the authors from Tourism Ireland 2012; NISRA 2013a, 2013b; Fáilte Ireland 2013b

Table 2 presents some key tourism economic indicators for both entities of the last couple of
years. Numbers reveal that the Republic of Ireland has much more developed tourism industry
which is partially a result, not only from the sheer size of the Republic of Ireland compared to
the Northern Ireland, but also from the hostilities that took place in the North, hindering the
development of its tourism industry. Currently, besides the more conventional cultural, VFR,
rural, cycling, fishing and other types of tourism, the island now develops dark/political
tourism (McDowell 2008; Simone-Charteris and Boyd 2010a, b), concentrated in the
Northern Ireland and related with the legacy of the ‘Troubles’. Of course, such portrayal of
conflicting heritage is not accepted unambiguously – as Simone-Charteris and Boyd (2010b)
elaborate some perceive this type of tourism as a positive transformation of the legacy of the
past, while others consider it as a way to deepen the differences in the society (McDowell
2008). Considering the political overcharge of this conflicting and very recent historical
period, such division in people’s perceptions about ‘Troubles’-related tours and sites is quite
understandable [similar divisions have been reported for communist heritage tourism by
Ivanov (2009) and Poria, Ivanov and Webster (2013)]. Nevertheless, such trips could serve as
a tool for peace as long as the travel guides’ and tourist sites’ narratives present a balanced
view of the history, without giving preference to any sides of the conflict.

In the case of Ireland, it is obvious that the tourism industry has benefited from the peace
process. The decrease of political tension and the politically motivated violent activities
created a peaceful environment that contributed to the increase of tourist flows to both sides
of the border, but especially to Northern Ireland (cf. Boyd 2000). However, the reverse link is
also observed – the increased number of cross-border travel and cooperation between North
Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the field of tourism contributes to strengthening the

8
peace process. Paraphrasing one of Marx’s seven basic forms of commodity trade “money =>
commodity => money prime” we can say that for the island of Ireland the formula is “peace
=> tourism => peace prime”.

Cyprus
Cyprus, as a politically divided island and a major tourism destination, has attracted attention
for those interested in the issue of tourism and the ability of tourism to generate political
stability. Cyprus, since the inception of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, has suffered from
major political clashed based upon the two major ethnicities on the island (Greek Cypriots
and Turkish Cypriots). In 1974, a Turkish invasion began an occupation of the island that led
to the creation of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” in the northern part of the
island. From 1974 until 2003, there was very limited movement of the populations between
these two political entities (“Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” and the internationally-
recognized Republic of Cyprus). Starting in 2003, there was a relaxation of the perceived
restrictions to crossing the checkpoints and many Turkish Cypriots were able to visit the
southern parts of the island while many Greek Cypriots crossed to the north. For the first time
since 2003, significant numbers of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were interacting and
visiting the part of the island. Although from the contact hypothesis point of view, this would
offer opportunities to develop a liberal peace or develop liberal peace-building capabilities,
many have chosen not to cross the “Green Line” (Webster and Timothy 2006).

There is a substantial attention given to the impact of the political and ethnic division of the
island on tourism development in Cyprus, given the importance of the tourism industry in
Cyprus (see, for example Alipour and Kilic 2003; Ekiz, Hussain and Ivanov 2010; Ioannides
1992; Ioannides and Holcomb 2001; Ioannides 2002; Ioannides and Apostolopoulos 1999;
Lockhart 1997; Yasarata, M., Altinay, Burns and Okumus 2010). However, the political
division and the linkage with tourism and the possibilities raised by co-operation on the island
via tourism has attracted a lot of attention (see, for example, Altinay and Bowen 2006;
Dikomitis 2005; Jacobson, Musyck, Orphanides and Webster 2010; Jacobson, Mehmet,
Musyck, Orphanides, and Webster 2010; Mehmet, Jacobson, Yorucu, Orphanides,
Michaelides, Katircioglu, Webster, Musyck, Violaris and Tahiroglu 2008; Musyck, Jacobson,
Mehmet, Orphanides, and Webster 2010; Scott 2012; Sonmez and Apostolopoulos 2000;
Webster, Musyck, Orphanides, and Jacobson 2009; Webster and Timothy 2006; Yildizian and
Ehteshami 2004). While there are some mixed results suggesting that there the tourism

9
industry working together on both sides of the ethnic divide may be willing to work together,
there is some indication that there is resistance to cooperation within the tourism industry,
illustrating that the conditions under which actors are willing to cooperate is limited (Webster,
Musyck, Orphanides, and Jacobson 2009). In general, it seems that while there is a stable
peace, there is still enough ethnic resistance to cooperation (at least on the part of Greek
Cypriots) that it seems unlikely that tourism as a force leading to continued contacts and the
building of peace on the island is unlikely. While there is indication on the part of Greek
Cypriots that they are willing to cooperate with Turkish Cypriots, there is evidence that this is
not a desired by all (Webster 2005).

All-in-all, there is indication that tourism may have a potential to bring about political
stability, from the contact hypothesis point of view in Cyprus. However, there is substantial
social resistance and suspicions on the part of the major ethnicities on the island, in regards to
having contacts. Thus, while there is the possibility of contact and cooperation via tourism,
the perceptions of many Cypriots and the uncertainty as to whether business contacts between
Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are permitted by the authorities, means that Greek
Cypriots, at least, are wary of exploring more than the most superficial of business
relationships with counterparts in the other political entity on the island. While there are few
or no real obstacles stopping Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots from crossing the Green
Line, many do not do so (Webster and Timothy 2006; Flynn, King, Braddon and Dadomo
2012). It is not a negligible proportion of the population that has not yet crossed the Green
Line since 2003, only about 65 percent of Greek Cypriots have crossed the Green Line and a
quarter of Greek Cypriots have only crossed once (Flynn, King, Braddon and Dadomo 2012,
32). Only about 55 percent of Turkish Cypriots have crossed the Green Line (Flynn, King,
Braddon and Dadomo 2012, 33). So, while contact could occur, there is still significant social
resistance to contacts with the “other” ethnicity, although there are very different patterns for
the reasons for not crossing the Green Line for the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots.
Greek Cypriots either refuse to cross due to either not wanting to show a passport to a Turkish
Cypriot official or out of a manner of principle, while Turkish Cypriots display a lack of
interest in crossing, generally (Webster and Timothy 2006, 174; Flynn, King, Braddon and
Dadomo 2012, 34).

In addition, it is not clear from the findings of the literature that there is a realistic expectation
that tourism between the two political entities on the island could lead to contacts that would

10
improve the political situation, leading to a more stable and self-sustaining peace. However,
there is continued hope in many circles that this would be true. One major remaining obstacle
is that fact that the legal problems of doing business with a state that is not internationally-
recognized prevents many in the private sector of Greek Cyprus keep a distance from
cooperating more with Turkish Cypriots, especially given an environment that would suggest
that there could be unpleasant legal repercussions for Greek Cypriots if business contacts are
too visible. In addition, the taboo for Greek Cypriot authorities regarding official cooperation
with the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” means that official cooperation remains
impossible, even if selling the Cypriot tourism product to the world as one product, based
upon the Irish model, is theoretically possible.

Korea
Politically, the north part of the Korean peninsula is one of the places where some groups of
tourists are not quite welcome. While for many years the two countries on the highly
militarized peninsula had few economic and political interactions, there is some change in this
in recent years. There is a small literature that focuses upon the possibilities that tourism gives
Korea to lead to a more peaceful and possibly unified peninsula (see, for example Kim and
Crompton 1990; Kim, Prideaux and Prideaux 2007; Park 2011; Shin 2010). One of the key
problems in terms of establishing a liberal peace and political stability is the issue of the
ability of people to meet and humanize the “other.” While Koreans may share a cultural
heritage and language, they have few chances to have direct face-to-face contact. The tourism
that has developed with foreigners arriving in North Korea is closely managed, preventing
meaningful interactions between tourists and hosts, for the most part. Kim and Crompton
(1990) suggested that tourism could assist in reunification, since it allows contacts between
citizens, thus allowing room for future engagement.

Apart from the limited interactions, there has been some change starting in November 1998.
In 1998, the Mount Kumgang Tourist Region opened in North Korea. This area in North
Korea is 530 sq. km and is designed as a place to enable South Koreans and others to visit the
North. In a way, it is a tourism equivalent to the Kaesŏng Industrial Region, a region in North
Korea in which South Korean companies employ about 53,000 workers from North Korea
and 800 staff members from South Korea. While tourists are in the Mount Kumgang Tourist
Region, there are many amenities that tourists would desire (circus, spa, shop…) but there are
restrictions and limitations upon contacts (Kim, Prideaux and Prideaux 2007). In July 2008, a

11
South Korean in the Tourist Region was shot to death by North Korean authorities, beginning
unpleasant political rows and the seizure of South Korean property in the region. Since 2011,
it is managed by North Koreans and is an international tourist zone that largely caters to
Chinese tourists, while South Korea has suspended trips to the resort.

Apart from the Mount Kumgang Tourist Region, there are other opportunities to travel in
North Korea, but there are many restrictions upon them and all require escorts by local tour
guides. While the political situation remains tense between the Koreas, there remain limited
opportunities, for example, it is international journalists and South Koreans who are routinely
denied entry into North Korea. What the political situation in the Koreas mean in terms of
building political stability and peace, is that it seems that the state (particularly the North
Korean state) still prevents contacts that could lead to the outcome that the contact hypothesis
would suggest. It seems that the strong states and the highly limited contacts between tourists
from the Koreas will remain a highly negligible impact for the creation of political stability
and peace in the Koreas, as long as tourist flows remain very low and highly choreographed
affairs.

Conclusion
Does tourism lead to political stability and peace, as liberals would suggest? Do contacts
between peoples lead to political stability, mutual understanding, and peace? The general
findings suggest that there may be some merit to the liberal approach, although the liberal
approach must be given the ability to function, both by the state as well as by the citizenry.
Governments should put more emphasis on the well-being of local populations by stimulating
(or at least not hindering) both inbound and outbound international tourism that leads
ultimately to understanding and peace among peoples. Governments could adopt various
activities that would make their countries accessible like: visa waiving programmes,
simplified and fast visa issue procedures, free/low fee visas, increased access to tourist
attractions, decreased airport/road/ferry taxes for passengers. Governments could also
establish cross-border tourism bodies (like the example of Ireland) to deal with tourism issues
in the partitioned states. Of course, these are difficult decisions since visas and taxes on visitor
are direct budget revenues from levies on non-voters and are, thus, highly politically
acceptable. Moreover, ‘national security’, ‘protection of national interests’, and ‘saving
country’s ideology/culture’ are on top of the political agenda in (probably) all countries. It
would be difficult for governments to swallow the liberalism pill, and this would definitely

12
not happen overnight. The political history of Europe shows that liberal ideas and cross-
border cooperation among formerly hostile countries was a gradual and long-term process.
When governments understand the long-term benefits of peace, stability and tourism for the
well-being of local populations, then they will be more prone to undertake measures to
stimulate cross-border cooperation in international tourism.

The biggest success story of the liberal tourism and political stability and peace is the story of
Ireland. Once the political forces there were able to coordinate in order to market something
that the world would be interested in, political stability and economic interdependence seemed
to break out. While in Ireland tourism is seen as a win/win situation by the state, this view is
somewhat different in other countries looked at. For example, for the authorities in Cyprus,
cooperation with the other political entity on the island is political taboo, since it is linked
with recognition of the other entity as politically legitimate and there is some indication that
citizens will not get involved in cooperating either out of personal beliefs or for fear of
retribution by the state. In the Koreas, the states still dominate and manage tourist
interactions, with North Korea especially keen to manage tourists and minimize interactions
between North Koreans and South Koreans.

The interesting political story that emerges, generally, is that liberal approaches may have
some merit to them. The only problem is that the state has to permit or perhaps even
encourage this, in order for the proper interactions to occur, enabling the creation of political
stability bolstered by tourism. . However, there are major obstacles that persist, one of the
major of which are the physical barriers. For example, the strongest forms of separation, such
as concrete walls in the Middle East and infrequently penetrated boundaries as in the Koreas,
hinder contacts. There are, of course, other obstacles that are not physical in nature, such as
persisting attitudes. More should be looked into to investigate the success of Ireland relative
to the other cases to define what made Ireland such a success. The conditions under which
sustained contacts led to a vision of a win/win relationship with tourism development should
be studied to see if they can be replicated successfully in other places, creating a more
peaceful and politically stable world via tourism.

13
References
Akama, John Sorana 2004. “Neocolonialism, dependency and external control of Africa's
tourism industry - a case study of wildlife safari tourism in Kenya.” In Tourism and
postcolonialism: contested discourses, identities and representations, edited by C. M.
Hall, and H. Tucker, 140-52. London: Routledge.
Akama, John Sorana 1999. “The evolution of tourism in Kenya.” Journal of Sustainable
Tourism. 7(1):2-25.
Akama, John Sorana and Kieti, Damiannah 2007. “Tourism and socio-economic
development in devleoping countries: a case study of Mombasa Resport in Kenya.”
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(6):735-48.
Alipour, Habib, and Hasan Kilic. 2003. “An institutional appraisal of tourism development
and planning: the case of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC).” Tourism
Management 26:79–94.
Altinay, Levent, and David Bowen. 2006. “Politics and tourism interface—the case of
Cyprus.” Annals of Tourism Research 33(4):939–56.
Askjellerud, Sashana 2003. “The tourist: a messenger of peace?” Annals of Tourism Research
30(3):741–4.
Bianchi, Raoul 2004. “Tourism restructuring and the politics of sustainability: a critical view
from the European periphery (the Canary Islands).” Journal of Sustainable Tourism
12(6):495-529.
Bianchi, Raoul 2002. “Towards a new political economy of global tourism.” In Tourism and
development. Concepts and issues, edited by R. Sharpley and D. Telfer, 265–99.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Bianchi, Raoul 2011. “Tourism, capitalism and Marxist political economy.” In Political
Economy of Tourism: a Critical Perspective, edited by Jan Mosedale, 17-37. Oxon:
Routledge.
Blanchard, Lynda-Ann and Higgins-Desbiolles, Freya (eds.). 2013. Peace through tourism.
Promoting human security through international citizenship. Oxon: Routledge.
Boyd, Stephen William 2000. “Heritage tourism in Northern Ireland: opportunities under
peace.” Current Issues in Tourism 3(2):150-174.
Britton, Stephen 1981. “Tourism, dependency and development: A mode of analysis.”
Development Studies Centre Occasional Paper 23. Canberra: The Australian National
University.
Britton, Stephen 1982. “The political economy of tourism in the third world.” Annals of
Tourism Research 9(3):331–58.
Butler, Richard, and Wantanee Suntikul. 2013. Tourism and War. Oxon: Routledge.
Butler, Richard, and Wantanee Suntikul. 2010. Tourism and political change. Woodeaton,
Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Causevic, Senija, and Paul Lynch. 2011. “Phoenix tourism: Post-conflict tourism role.”
Annals of Tourism Research 38(3):780–800.
Clements, Mike A., and A. Georgiou. 1998. “The impact of political instability on a fragile
tourism product.” Tourism Management 19(3):283–8.
Chaperon, Samantha, and Bill Bramwell. 2013. “Dependency and agency in peripheral
tourism development.” Annals of Tourism Research 40:132–54.
Carr, Edward Hallet 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. New York: Perennial.
D’Amore, Louis J. 1988. “Tourism – A vital force for peace.” Tourism Management
9(2):151-4.
Dikomitis, Lisa 2005. “Three readings of a border: Greek Cypriots crossing the green line in
Cyprus.” Anthropology Today 21(5):7–12.

14
Ekiz, Erdogan, Kashif Hussain, and Stanislav Ivanov. 2010. “Investigating marketing
opportunities of a politically challenged island destination: the case of North Cyprus.”
In Marketing island destinations: concepts and cases, edited by Acolla Lewis-
Cameron and Sherma Roberts, 65-78. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Fáilte Ireland. 2013a. Official website <http://www.failteireland.ie/>. Accessed June 23,
2013.
Fáilte Ireland. 2013b. Overseas Visitors to Ireland January-December 2009-2012. Accessed
August 13, 2013.
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Resear
ch_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/Overseas_visitors_January-December_2012-
1.pdf.
Flynn, M., King, Tony, Braddon, Derek and Dadomo, Christian 2012. Reconciliation and
peace economics in Cyprus. Summary of findings (February 2012). Report to the
European Commission (EuropeAid Cypriot Civil Society in Action II Programme).
Project Report. University of the West of England. Accessed June 25, 2013.
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/17538/2/report_feb_2012_EU_RO.pdf.
Greer, Johnathan 2002. “Developing trans-jurisdictional tourism partnerships—insights from
the Island of Ireland.” Tourism Management 23(4):355-66.
Guzzini, Stefano 1998. Realism in international relations and international political
economy: The continuing story of a death foretold. London: Routledge.
Guzzini, Stefano 2013. Power, realism and constructivism. London: Routledge.
Hall, Collin Michael 2011. “Yes, Virginia, there is a tourism class: why class still matters in
tourism analysis.” In Political economy of tourism: a critical perspective, edited by
Jan Mosedale, 111-125. Oxon: Routledge.
Holsti, Kalevi Jacque 1985. The dividing discipline: hegemony and diversity in international
theory. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.
Higgins-Desbiolles, Freya 2006. “More than an ‘‘industry’’: The forgotten power of tourism
as a social force.” Tourism Management 27(6):1192–208.
Higgins-Desbiolles, Freya 2007. “Hostile meeting grounds: Encounters between the wretched
of the Earth and the tourist through tourism and terrorism in the 21st century.” In
Tourism and politics: Global frameworks and local realities, edited by P. Burns and
M. Novelli, 309–32. Oxford: Elsevier.
Ioannides, Dimitri, and Yorghos Apostolopoulos. 1999. “Political instability, war and tourism
in cyprus: effects, management, and prospects for recovery.” Journal of Travel
Research 38(1):51–5.
Ioannides, Dimitri and Holcomb, Briavel 2001. “Raising the stakes: implications of upmarket
tourism policies in Cyprus and Malta.” In Mediterranean islands and sustainable
tourism development. Practices, management and policies, edited by D. Ioannides, Y.
Apostolopoulos and S. Sonmez, 234-258. London & New York: Continuum.
Ioannides., Dimitri 2002. “Tourism development in Mediterranean islands: opportunities and
constraints.” In Island Tourism and Sustainable Development: Caribbean, Pacific and
Mediterranean Experiences, edited by Y. Apostolopoulos and D. Gayle, 67-89.
London: Praeger.
Ioannides, Dimitri 1992. “Tourism development agents: The Cypriot resort cycle.” Annals of
Tourism Research 19(4):711–31.
Ivanov, Stanislav 2009. “Opportunities for developing communist heritage tourism in
Bulgaria.” Tourism 57(2):177-92.
Jacobson, David, Bernard Musyck, Stelios Orphanides, and Craig Webster. 2010. “The
opening of the Ledra crossing in Nicosia: Social and economic consequences”, In

15
 Tourism and Political Change, edited by R. Butler and W. Suntikul, 199-207.
Woodeaton, Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers.
Kelly, Ian .2006. “Peace through tourism: a SWOT analysis.” IIPT Occasional Paper No. 2,
International Institute for Peace Through Tourism. Accessed June 18,
2013.http://www.iipt.org/educators/OccPap02.pdf.
Kim, Yong Kwan, and John Crompton. 1990. “Role of tourism in unifying the two Koreas.”
Annals of Tourism Research 17(3):353-66.
Kim, Samuel Seongseop, Bruce Prideaux, and Jillian Prideaux. 2007. “Using tourism to
promote peace on the Korean peninsula.” Annals of Tourism Research 34(2):291–309
Leslie, David 1996. “Northern Ireland, tourism and peace.” Tourism Management 17(1):51-5.
Leslie, David 1999. “Terrorism and tourism: the Northern Ireland situation – a look behind
the veil of certainty.” Journal of Travel Research 38:37-40.
Lockhart, DouglasGrant 1997. “Tourism to Malta and Cyprus.” In Island tourism: trends and
prospects, edited by D. Lockhart and D. Drakakis-Smith. 152-175, England: Pinter.
Maoz, Darya 2010. “Warming peace: an encounter between Egyptian hosts and Israeli guests
in Sinai.” In Tourism, progress and peace, edited by O. Moufakkir and I. Kelly, 65–
82. Wallingford: CABI.
Mbaiwa, Joseph E. (2005) “Enclave tourism and its socio- economic impacts in the Okavango
Delta, Botswana”, Tourism Management 26(2): 157-72.
McCall, Cathal and Liam O’Dowd. 2008. “Hanging flower baskets, blowing in the wind?
Third-sector groups, cross-border partnerships, and the EU Peace programs in
Ireland.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 14(1):29-54.
McDowell, Sara 2008. “Selling conflict heritage through tourism in peacetime Northern
Ireland: transforming conflict or exacerbating difference?” International Journal of
Heritage Studies 14(5):405-21.
Mehmet, Ozay, David Jacobson, Vedat Yorucu, Stelios Orphanides, George Michaelides,
Salhi Katircioglu, Craig Webster, Bernard Musyck, John Violaris, and Mehmet
Tahiroglu. (2008). The future of the tourism industry in Cyprus: Divided or reunited?
Nicosia: Management Centre of the Mediterranean.
Meyer, Dorothea 2011. “Changing power relations: foreign direct investment in Zanzibar.” In
Political Economy of Tourism: a Critical Perspective, edited by Jan Mosedale, 157-
174. Oxon: Routledge.
Moufakkir, Omar and Ian Kelly (eds.). 2010. Tourism, progress and peace. Wallingford:
CABI.
Muckley, Cal 2011. “Terrorism, tourism and FDI: Estimating a lower bound on the peace
dividend in Northern Ireland.” Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of
Ireland 50:116-132.
Munt, Ian 1994. “Eco-tourism or ego-tourism?” Race & Class 36(1):49-60.
Musyck, Bernard, David Jacobson, Ozay Mehmet, Stelios Orphanides, and Craig Webster.
2010. “Divided or reunited? Prospects for the Cyprus tourism industry.” In Tourism,
Progress and Peace, editted by O. Moufakkir and I. Kelly, 212-27. Oxford: CABI.
North/South Ministerial Council. 2013. Official website
<http://www.northsouthministerialcouncil.org>. Accessed June 23, 2013.
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). 2013a. Northern Ireland tourism
statistics 2012. Accessed August 13, 2013.
http://www.detini.gov.uk/northern_ireland_tourism_statistics_2012-3.pdf.
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). 2013b. Northern Ireland hotel,
bed and breakfast, guesthouse and self-catering occupancy (January-December 2012).
Accessed August 13, 2013.

16
 http://www.detini.gov.uk/northern_ireland_hotel_bed__breakfast_guesthouse_and_sel
f-catering_occupancy_survey_2012.pdf.
Park, HyungYu 2011. “Shared national memory as intangible heritage: re-imagining two
Koreas as one nation.” Annals of Tourism Research 38(2):520–39.
Pizam, Abraham, Jafar Jafari and Ady Milman. 1991. “Influence of tourism on attitudes: US
students visiting USSR.” Tourism Management 12(1):47–54.
Pizam, Abraham, Natan Uriely, and Ariel. Reichel. 2000. “The intensity of tourist-host social
relationship and its effects on satisfaction and change of attitudes: the case of working
tourists in Israel.” Tourism Management 21(4):395–406.
Poria, Yaniv, Stanislav Ivanov and Craig Webster. 2013. “Attitudes and willingness to donate
towards heritage restoration: An exploratory study about Bulgarian socialist
monuments.” Journal of Heritage Tourism (forthcoming).
DOI:10.1080/1743873X.2013.778266.
Power, Maria (ed.). 2011. Building peace in Northern Ireland. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press.
Salazar, Noel B. 2006. “Building a ‘‘Culture of Peace’’ through tourism; reflexive and
analytical notes and queries.” Universitas Humanistica 62:319–33.
Sarkar, Sudipta Kiran, and Babu P. George. 2010. “Peace through alternative tourism: Case
studies from Bengal, India.” Journal of Tourism and Peace Research 1(1):27–41.
Scott, Julie 2012. “Tourism, civil society and peace in Cyprus.” Annals of Tourism Research
39(4):2114–32.
Shin, Yongseok 2010. “How stable is peace linked with tourism? The case of Mt. Geumgang
tourism development project on the Korean Peninsula.” In Tourism, progress and
peace, edited by O. Moufakkir and I. Kelly, 199-211. Wallingford: CABI.
Simone-Charteris, M. T. and S. W. Boyd. 2010a. “Northern Ireland re-emerges from the
Ashes: the contribution of political tourism towards a more visited and peaceful
environment.” In Tourism, progress and peace, edited by O. Moufakkir and I. Kelly,
179-98. Wallingford: CABI.
Simone-Charteris, Maria Teresa and Stephen W. Boyd. 2010b. “Developing dark and political
tourism in Northern Ireland: an industry perspective.” In Contemporary issues in Irish
and global tourism and hospitality, editted by G. Gorham and Z, Mottiar, 106-23.
Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology.
Sonmez, Sevil, and Yorghos Apostolopoulos. 2000. “Conflict resolution through tourism
cooperation? The case of the partitioned island-state of Cyprus.” Journal of Travel and
Tourism Marketing 9(3):35–48.
Tannam, Etain 2006. “Cross-border co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic
of Ireland: neo-functionalism revisited.” The British Journal of Politics &
International Relations 8(2):256-76.
Teague, Paul, and Joan Henderson. 2006. “The Belfast Agreement and cross-border economic
cooperation in the tourism Industry.” Regional Studies 40(9):1083-96.
Tomljenović, Renata 2010. “Tourism and intercultural understanding or contact hypothesis
revisited. In Tourism, progress and peace, edited by O. Moufakkir and I. Kelly, 17-34.
Wallingford: CABI.
Tourism Ireland. 2013. Official website <http://www.tourismireland.com/Home/about-
us.aspx>. Accessed June 23, 2013.
Tourism Ireland. 2011. Tourism Ireland’s Corporate Plan 2011-2013. Tourism Ireland.
Tourism Ireland. 2012. Tourism facts 2011. Accessed August 13, 2013.
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Resear
ch_Insights/3_General_SurveysReports/Tourism_Facts_2011_V3.pdf.

17
Walt, Stephen 1998. “International relations: one world, many theories.” Foreign Policy
110:29--46
Webster, Craig 2005. “Greek Cypriot perspectives on interacting with Turkish Cypriots.”
Cyprus Review 17:79–92
Webster, Craig, Bernard Musyck, Stelios Orphanides, and David Jacobson. 2009. “Working
on the Other Side. Cooperative tour organizers and uncooperative hoteliers: evidence
from Greek Cypriot tourism professionals.” European Planning Studies 17(10):1485-
508.
Webster, Craig and Dallen. Timothy. 2006. “Travelling to the ‘Other Side’: the Occupied
Zone and Greek Cypriot views on crossing the green line.” Tourism Geographies
8(2):163-81.
Yasarata, Muhammet, Levent Altinay, Peter Burns, and Fevzi. Okumus. 2010. “Politics and
sustainable tourism development—can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus.”
Tourism Management 31(3):345–56.
Yildizian, Arax-Marie and Anoush Ehteshami. 2004. Ethnic conflict in Cyprus and the
contact hypothesis: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at First Global
Conference: Evil, Law and the State: Issues in State Power and Violence, July 14–17,
Oxford, Mansfield College.

18